Search

Even in sub-Saharan Africa's most progressive nations, agbiotech partnerships are still often poorly oriented to end users, fragmented in scope and of limited impact in achieving the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals.

Investment in biotechnology has yielded relatively disappointing results and illustrates the gap between the promise and reality of new science. This begs the question: Does research on 'life' bring different complexities and uncertainties that act as a barrier to the application of new biology in global health and agriculture? There has been high-quality research on the social and ethical impacts of new biology and on the economics of biotechnology but few systematic and integrated attempts to undertake interdisciplinary research and address these constraints. This paper provides an original empirical analysis of contemporary and future understandings of the bioeconomy using a co-evolutionary and interactive approach to examine the extent to which it may be different from other technological transformations. We focus on the Innogen Centre's extensive research results on three important and contemporary themes: food and energy security, life science and healthcare translational medicine, and global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural biotechnology is typically analyzed critically by means of a political ecological focus on the science and its ecological implications – agbio science as a radical, and ‘non-natural’, break with ‘normal’ trajectories for ‘new plant science’. Surprisingly, less attention has been paid to a range of key political economic issues, many of which were important in the last big food production technology ‘revolution’, the Green Revolution. This paper will focus on three areas of political economy. First, we discuss the corporate drivers of agricultural biotechnology, and examine whether these drivers have already set the technology so that it cannot be changed. Second, we investigate the present economics and technology of genetic modification in plants, and its possible future. Third, we examine empirical evidence for alternative visions of the technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]